I see little evidence they are taking NK seriously. But their statements may be lost in the constant “Saddam eats puppies and gases kittens” lines. Japan says they will bomb NK if they even fuel up a missile, and SK is acting like NK doesn’t have nukes. We don’t even know 100% if they do or not, nor if that new missile will actually work and hit the US. And with the CIA director before congress acting uninformed, surprised, then all ho-hum that NK has nukes and can nuke the mainland, i have little confidence that they are paying close attention to the Pacific.
And for you Hawks, please explain what Saddam has done to the US in the past 12 years. I’ll even start:
violated the no-fly zone several times, and locked onto allied jets with anti-air stuff, so we took out the anti-air stuff.
kicked out inspectors. we didn’t do much for a while.
With (3), Saddam hasn’t done shit for the last decade except talk big and piss off the US. I’d say he’s pretty contained right now, and generally not much of a threat even to Kuwait. I think he may have got the message that if he strays outside his own border, there will be hell to pay.
However…
:rolleyes:
I think points 1 and 6 are related, and are my real problem with the whole Iraqi War Mission. As I see it, no-one has made a credible connection between the attack on the US on 9/11 and Iraq. Therefore, if we go in and implement the Nasty-Assed Dictator Early Retirement Plan, might it not be seen from the outside as replacing an existing evil tyrant with one more in line with the US interests; still evil, but now with stronger backers. Bear in mind, the US/UK have a fairly horrible history of creating puppet governments in the Eastern Med. And might this not have the effect of encouraging more militant attacks by terrorists, especially ones that are not traceable to any given country.
Face it, for all the bluster, Hussein’s not going to do anything for a year or two. We can contain him (as has been happening), and we can tie him up in Inspections and UN bureaucracy for the next decade or so.
Someone back there commented that the way to solve this one is to rebuild Afghanistan (all of it, not just the bits round Kabul but out in the country where the warlords live) to show the local population the benefits of the American system, and how peaceful Muslims can live in such a society (“hearts and minds”). You can’t bully people into liking you; hell, at some level the more you bully them, the more they fight.
I think the biggest problem is that such a solution might not be in place in time for the next US elections.
Devoted the resources of a state to developing mass-casualty weapons to which terrorists and other rogue states can reasonably be assumed to have access.
BTW, this also stands as the real problem with North Korea–not NK’s putative three-stage missile. I believe that the Bush Administration is very alert to this danger, one sign of which was the boarding of that Yemen-bound cargo ship. Even though we let the ship go, we got the point across to North Korea that we know what they’re up to, and we’re prepared to take action. Notice how NK’s behavior became even more wonky than usual after that? They got the point.
The highlighted part is the part i have trouble with, we have little to no evidence they are giving them access. I have seen info that Saddam is giving money to the families of suicide bombers in Isreal, but that hardly counts as access to WMD.
I thought the cargo ship we were searching for weapons destin for Iraq. NK has been all crazy since they were mentioned as part of the Axis of Evil, then ignored completely. Plus Kim is freakin’ insane. the man lives his life through movies, he’s kidnapped actors from SK to make movies for him, and i wouldn’t be surprised if he’s gone goofy after seeing the latest Bond Movie with the Korea connection, and thinks that is evidence that North Korea is going to be attacked.
Sorry for not replying earlier, it has been a long day.
Let’s see here. Some solutions from the idiotic to the feasible (I will let you decide where they lay on the scale)
Pack up and go home. Everyone assumes that terrorist have access to his WMD, but for 12 years there has been no evidence that he supplies anyone of the kind with any weapons. Israel is more than capable of keeping him in line.
Bribe him for with lifting of the UN sanctions. Take it slowing and actually start trickling in aid and allow small amounts of trade to begin and expect only his cooperation, not oil or anything else.
Lift the sanctions entirely and threaten to slam them back into place harder than before if he does not comply.
Isolate him by closing his boarders more so than they are now.
Support the guy with all of our love and might. Make him the Islamic equivalent of Israel. Just the 80’s but even more so. Plus Rumsfield can shake his hand again.
Now this one will avoid getting our hands dirty, but will still cause war. Supply the rebel factions with enough arms and training to over throw him. It worked for the pre-Taliban in Afghanistan.
Pull fund the UN to do something about enforcing situation. At least stop having our private citizens fund the UN. Bless you Ted.
Let the current inspections work, and allow for more time. IIRC, the first weapons inspectors are intimated to have destroyed over 90% of his WMD. Don’t sound too shabby to me.
Well there are just 8. I am certain that I could think up a few. Any of them are better this very expensive puffing of the feathers that is going on now.
No on another note, what the frick is the reason for this war anyway. First it was because he has WMD, but now it is to save his people. Geez, the war hawks are starting to sound about Iraqi people like green piece sounded about saving the whales. I can’t wait until I see Save the Iraqis bumper stickers next to the vote republican ones.
I’d have to disagree. How about the Ricin found in London? The cell that had that Ricin had recently met with Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida leader who was recently in Baghdad. Colin Powell testified before the U.N. that Zarqawi was running a training camp inside Iraq, and had frequently travelled to Baghdad.
Now, a lot of the usual suspects around here have said much about how Bin Laden hates Saddam, and how they would never work together, etc. But this has never been backed up with any evidence. On the other hand, we have al-Qaida running around freely in Baghdad, moving in and out of the country, and according to the government they have actually signed a non-aggression pact. And Powell documents eight meetings between al-Qaida leaders and officials in Hussein’s government.
And there’s still the open matter of the Anthrax found in the U.S. We have no idea where it came from. It wasn’t weaponized in the same way that the U.S. military weaponized anthrax.
I don’t know why the anti-war folks are so eager to dismiss the possibility that Saddam IS moving weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups. There is evidence of this, and he has means, motive, and opportunity.
I’m guessing you are opposed to any military option. So, since the only comments from KJI involve militaristic rhetoric, what should we negotiate?
AZCowboy: Nobody can prove anything about a hypothetical over 60 years ago. But, logically, what would the Axis powers had done if we offered to maintain neutrality in return for a non-aggression pact? Attack us? How? Our biggest threat to Germany was our supplying the Soviets and the British. We could have negotiated various DMZs around the world. Their only real threats to our mainland, submarines and commandos, were not going to force a US surrender any time soon. Our long-range bombing out of Britan was sure to hurt them before they could hope to hurt us.
Japan certainly would have negotiated with us, assuming we were willing to make some concessions. If you believe the latest theories about the war, we practically forced Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor. Were they to invade California? As one German veteran wrote, referring to Operation Barbarossa, “Had anyone looked at a map of the Soviet Union?”
Anyway, we had to fight the Axis eventually. Better sooner when they were only strong than later when they might have become invincible.
Permit me to jump in, Beagle:
"Are you doubting that President Bush and Rumsfeld are thinking about the Korean situation daily, and commenting on it almost as frequently?
If you want action, what do you propose?"
Glad you asked. I propose that GWB agree to talk with the North Koreans. Setting aside those psychic conservatives who believe they can read the mind of Kim Jung Il, I would propose that we consider exchanging the dropping of sanctions for a verified agreement not to develop nukes.
It is my opinion that NK’s nuclear program is not a phony one. It is also my opinion that it is possible that they can be bought off. Not with fuel oil: the US provides only about 2-6% of their energy requirements (China provides more). Rather, the dropping of US sanctions would allow the direct resumption of international aid and indirectly the possibility of international investment.
To those who say that Kim Jung would never agree to the preceding, I respond, “What’s the harm of asking? Directly?”
Furthermore, I should think that my proposal is not that extraordinary. Rather it fits in comfortably with old-fashioned Realpolitik, though poorly with fundamentalist approaches. (Plus I heard it proposed on the radio today. )
“Do not reward bad behavior”, is fine in principle but may lead to disaster in this particular application.
Dropping sanctions? Fine. Clearly we would have to have technology bans and such. I’m sure someone else knows lots of examples of sanctions working. Maybe if the North Koreans sell enough long-range missiles they will be able to feed their people, and not just their army. Sorry, I’m a little cynical about KJI.
I’m truly not sure that North Korea has anything legitimate to sell, BTW. Their only hard currency really does come from arms sales.
Verifiable agreement? There’s the rub, really. I don’t see anything resembling a truly verifiable agreement coming out of North Korea so long as there is a madmad dependent upon blackmail and weapons sales for hard currency. Not to say I’m against signing something to quiet this down. But to think that we will ever get true cooperation from NK is overly optimistic.
Direct talks? OK. The US is already talking about a force realignment in South Korea. I think we are trying to appease as fast as we can to avoid another Korean War.
Assuming we try all of it and KJI refuses to halt weapons production, what then? That’s the real problem. North Korea with dozens of nuclear weapons, and missiles to deliver them. The whole region will probably nuclearize quickly, with potentially grave consequences.
You’d guess wrong. I want to avoid military options at all cost, but with North Korea, I don’t know if that’s going to be possible. Like I said:
I’m a student of history. I know that in some situations war is unavoidable. Iraq is not one of them. I hope that North Korea isn’t one of them, either. But I just don’t know. If they attack South Korea or Japan, we’ll have no choice. I see that as much more plausible than Iraq doing anything in the next couple of years. And much more dangerous because of the elephant-in-the-room China.
We’re in a difficult position all over the world, and I have zero confidence in our leaders’ ability to get us out of this without some kind of huge bloodbath.
Beagle, this little discussion about the hypotheticals regarding WWII is quite the digression. It started because I put forth two principles which would justify our proactive attack on Iraq, in contrast to december’s six “benefits” that would morally justify our action. Doghouse Reilly challenged those as “impossible standards” (but never offering the standard he/she uses to justify our proactive attack). He/She suggested that WWII couldn’t meet the standard. I simply suggested that when US troops are attacked, the security threat to the US is imminent.
Wouldn’t we all agree that Al Quaida is a threat to US security? But does anyone believe they are a threat to “invade” the US mainland? Send bombers?
I think I now see the point, but the logic is FUBAR.
There are always alternatives to war. You can just lay down and play patsy. You can give up all you hold dear and negotiate terms. Please point to where my principles suggest such a pacifist stance? You must be reading words that aren’t there.
Does anyone want to argue that december’s list of six potential “benefits” morally justifies proactive US attacks without UN support?
The OP of this thread implies that those opposed to such action do not have clear and compelling reasons to do so. And that’s a crock. december’s post clearly illustrated that such convoluted logic appears on both sides.
Just like the WWII subthread, the NK subthread simply distracts from the discussion at hand.
Sounds to me like Osama is just using this rhetoric to get people fired up to kill Americans, but not saying “Saddam helps us so lets help him”
evidence, times, dates, whatnots, please.
Dude, I can make anthrax. You don’t have to be a terrorist mastermind. and isn’t their “person of interest” a white guy?
i fail to see the evidence, just alot of speculation and guesses. He is moving his WMD around, because he is playing hide and seek with the inspectors.**
the motive to get blown to smitherines by the US if we find anything? I fail to see real evidence of a connection, just some evil guy in a hospital who Iraq didn’t want to let die and incurr more Al-Qaeda wrath.
All you are showing here is a distressing tendency to believe people like Taliban commander and Pakistani intelligence, while completely discounting anything the U.S. has to say. Frankly, I would much rather place my trust in Colin Powell. And trust is what is required - we do not have access to the intelligence that Powell has.
Sure you can. And it will stick together in nice clumps and not do much. To ‘weaponize’ the stuff requires major skills and laboratory techniques - the U.S. worked on the problem for years and years. And apparently the stuff that was floating around last year was milled to a finer degree than the U.S. stocks were, and was ‘weaponized’ using a different technique than the U.S. government used. As I understand it, one of the problems with weaponizing the stuff is that the milling process causes static charges to build up on the particles, and that causes them to stick together and to rapidly dissipate in air rather than hanging around in suspension to be breathed in. The U.S. spent its effort on getting rid of the charge, and this stuff was weaponized by milling to a finer degree, or something like that.
In any event, by all accounts this stuff was the product of a serious research facility. Not something you could have made in your back yard.
And if the reports out of Mexico are to believed, the Anthrax was from several different strains, and of different preparations. Which would tend to discredit the ‘lone nut’ theory.
But I will agree that the evidence is rather small either way, and any conclusion is possible. That’s why I didn’t say, “It’s Iraqi!” I said it’s troubling that we can’t identify where it came from, or who sent it.
I think a better characterization might be, “More of the same from Safire”.
The point is that North Korea sees little point in talking with others, as their dispute is with the US. Iraq is making no such demand.
My stance is that we should look at the world as it is, in a hard-headed and clear-eyed fashion. (example —> :dubious: ) That means (in this context) that we should acknowledge that China sees no problem having a tinpot dictator on its borders, all the better to keep the red-meat crowd in the US distracted. Our interests are simply not identical.
Hey wait a second. Surely a multilateral arrangement would involve taking greater account of South Korean perceptions. (Oh, I didn’t mean that kind of multilateral, replies our imaginary Safire).
At any rate, talk of “hypocrisy” has more to do with scoring debating points than with solving complicated and intricate matters of international policy. (How’s that for a superior attitude? )
Beagle: More seriously, the point is that we should give negotiations a try, something that W so far has refused to do.* It is my take that Bush Sr., McCain and Tricky Dick (for example) would not have carried out a 2 year policy of malign neglect with regards to the Korean peninsula and they would have been willing to talk things over if they found themselves under the current situation. The point: what I am recommending is rather mild. It is in no way is dependent upon illusions about N Korean benevolence.
Opening talks and thereby, “Rewarding N Korea for bad behavior” may be the worst option --with the exception of every remaining alternative.
I agree that negotiations will be tricky. N. Korea also wants security guarantees from the US. That is a taller order. It is also true that N Korea may not be willing to play, even if it receives a decent offer from the US.
Under that eventuality, I admit that I currently would lean towards deterrence and containment. In contrast to my position on Iraq. (Sorry I can’t elaborate further: I have a conference call with Kofi Annan in a moment. )
Although W’s administration did talk with N Korea last fall.
“Glad you asked. I propose that GWB agree to talk with the North Koreans. Setting aside those psychic conservatives who believe they can read the mind of Kim Jung Il, I would propose that we consider exchanging the dropping of sanctions for a verified agreement not to develop nukes.”
Yeah, that first agreement we had with them to not develop nukes worked just great, didn’t it? I propose that we tell KJI that either he destroys his nukes immediately, or when we invade he will have to spend his prison sentence dancing daily with Madeline Albright.
Oh come on, now, Texican, pointing out inconsistencies like this is just trying to score debating points, and has nothing to do with solving complicated and intricate matters of international policy.
One gets the feeling that flowbark is reading from the same prepared script as the French UN ambassador. What we say is a torrent of contradictory bullshit, but we sound oh so sophisticated when we say it. Any feelings otherwise should present an excellent opportunity to shut up.
Mr. Dog:
Actually, I’m reading from Henry Kissinger’s script. Just precede all my haughty commentary with an erudite, “Auhhhgrhhhh”.
Besides, you’re ducking my substantive response (though I am heartened that you enjoyed my verbiage. I was going to say “serious”, but I settled on “complicated and intricate”.)
China finds it useful to have a little instability on its borders.
Here’s the situation. China provides N. Korea with most of its energy requirements. Not the US. China has KJI’s balls in a sling. Not the US. The US merely has… leverage. That is the relevant background to Safire’s piece: Safire’s position is that we should put the screws on China, so that China puts the screws on N. Korea. Safire even recommended that the US pull of S. Korea for gosh sakes.
As for inconsistencies, I put that argument up there with, “What! We armed Saddam in the 1980s!” It has more than a grain of truth, but is factually misleading and really isn’t especially relevant to (…Auhhhgrhhhh) current US security concerns.
Big Picture: I’d say that largest erosion of US security interests vis a vis North Korea occurred in the past 6 months, following 2 years of malign neglect. To believe otherwise is to have one’s head in the sand.
Beagle: I do see signs of movement within the Bush admin. Powell is talking about reviving a “bold approach” (read: more goodies for KJI). And when the US writes a check for over $20 billion to Turkey, that is noticed in N. Korea. Just as the Arabs notice when the Bush admin forgets to include aid to Afghanistan in this year’s budget (an oversight which was quickly corrected in Congress).
